Concern was expressed by Albert Mohler on his 8/8/13 podcast regarding the increasing amount of time the average person is spending in front of an electronic screen consuming content such as digital media.

Given that Mohler's program is primarily available through this particular medium, it is ironic that he would raise this complaint.

Should the discerning Christian cut back on this renowned seminarian's program if it is not so much quality of the screen time we are to be concerned with rather than quality?

As part of his argument, Mohler quotes from theologian Jacques Ellul who argued that, once a technology enters our lives, it begins to take them over.

Would Dr. Mohler have made such a complaint about the printing press and the revolution in information made available by the proliferation of economically approved.

Back then, it was also argued that works disseminated in that fashion would undermine authorities and put knowledge in the hands of those not deemed qualified to handle it.

But most importantly, without the printed word, would the Protestantism (of which Albert Mohler is one of the movement's most prominent contemporary spokesmen and thinkers) have blossomed into a viable expression of the Christian tradition?

The Dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, DC claims to be a “non-theistic Christian” according to a Washington Post profile.

As justification, the clergyman claims Jesus referenced his father but that this does not necessarily mean God.

Then who exactly is the father of Jesus?

Was it the blond-haired, blue-eyed Germanic Roman solider stationed in Palestine as conjectured by one of the translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible?

Is the baby-daddy of the Christ Child one of the saucer men as hypothesized by the Chariot of The Gods theory?

The Bible doesn't speak much in favor of gay marriage and says even less about gun control.

However, that certainly hasn't prevented Dean Hall from often commenting enthusiastically on behalf of these causes trendy among leftists.

One of the most profound questions anyone will ever answer was originally raised by Jesus and directed towards His Disciples when He asked who did they say that He was.

If one responds with anything but the Son of God and second person of the Trinity yet has made Christian ministry one's occupational vocation, the only purpose for having done so is to drag as many as possible along with you into the pits of Hell.

When theologians and the like remark how society has become more casual, it might be helpful if they explained what is exactly meant by that, to what extent they oppose the development, and how this trend is supposedly harming the individual.

For example, it is probably best for those holding elected, ecclesiastical, or professional office to adorn themselves worthy of the part as they execute their duties.

However, it does not follow that the remainder of us should be similarly miserable if we are not enjoying the same degree of prestige, payment or opportunity.

Relatedly, sometimes those latching onto this complaint insist one can no longer distinguish between men and women in contemporary America.

Yet other than assorted gays, certain men with long hair, and women with eating disorders in serious need of treatment, it is not that difficult to tell the difference between a man and woman in a pair of jeans or slacks.

If solving that mystery stumps you, perhaps one ought to spend a little less time in scholastic isolation and instead study the intricacies of the human form.

In a Facebook exchange regarding this issue of attire in the church, for suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the average attender adorning themselves a bit more casually while it is probably better for the clergy to dress a bit more solemnly, it was hinted at that I was undermining my usual position of vocational equality.

But foremostly, the validity of that allegation depends on what is meant by equality.

The pastor is to lead the order of service within the church.

That's why one does not shout out how full of it many of them are in the middle of the service.

However, the pastor is not in charge of my home or what goes on in my head.

That is why in my vocation as a critic under the First Amendment why I am able to convey my findings and conclusions to a broader audience through social media upon my return home.

It was also observed that most dress better for work or a restaurant than they do for church.

However, those particular places have established rules regarding what one must wear if one does not want one’s access to such places restricted or rescinded.

Unless one is on its administrative staff, such regulations do not normally exist for a house of worship.

Do we want to start barring those not deemed “good enough” in terms of outer formality from entering the house of God?

These days, so long as the “strategic areas” of the anatomy are concealed, shouldn’t we just be glad someone shows up at all in light of all the other options competing for someone’s time and attention?

Sunday, August 11, 2013

One wrench that use to be tossed into Darwinism's mechanistic view of the universe was the raising of the issue of what supposedly happened to all of those transitional forms.

Even Darwin himself is alleged to have relented that his theory would ultimately be proven or discarded on the basis of such geological evidence.

For well over a century now, those wanting to extol what passes for education over and above commonsense have attempted to elaborate any number of conceptual bypasses around the 800 pound subhuman hominid in the room.
An article in the May 2011 edition of Discover Magazine makes such an attempt by positioning that we ourselves are the transitional forms or at least what's left over of them in terms of primate evolution.

No longer are we to think of ourselves in terms of being exclusively modern homo sapiens. Rather we are to view ourselves as the genetic composites of previous ancestors such as Neanderthals and those other creatures reminiscent of Chaka from Land of the Lost.

This theory is put forward as an attempt to silence the critics of naturalistic evolution.

Yet the hypothesis ends up raising a number of questions that reveal just what one has to ignore and overlook in order to accept this particular narrative's attempt to account for the origins of man.

Foremost, if other higher order hominids were eventually wiped out or disappeared because they interbred increasingly with what we would recognize as human beings, why wouldn't these alleged ancestors we are more reluctant to embrace as part of our own kind, if they are able to produce a fecund offspring as a result of copulation through mating, be considered fellow human beings?

For is not the history of Anthropology literally littered with the corpses of people thought to be of the status of less than fully human? I recall Ken Ham one time claiming that at one point in the 1800's Australian Aborigines were harvested as research specimens.

Even when these remains are uncovered as part of legitimate research and excavation, it must be asked if a number of these conclusions arrived at are really inherent to the evidence or are active imaginations reading back into the data what these researchers instead intensely want to see.

For if Neanderthals could interbreed with run of the mill human beings to the point where certain evolutionary theorists are insisting that we ourselves are partially Neanderthal, aren't Neanderthals just anther racial or ethnic group?

Researcher Jack Cuozzo hypothesized in “Buried Alive:The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man” that Neanderthals may have been the extremely aged or the diseased suffering from degenerative bone conditions similar to arthritis. For daring to proffer such a conjecture foremost proponents of inquiry and knowledge resorted to intimidation and threats of violence for presenting such an unconventional perspective.

By downplaying distinctions between human beings and what were at one time categorized as species preceding us along the chain of primatology obviously nothing more than glorified apes, radical evolutionists hope to further erode the preconceived boundaries between the species for the purposes of biological manipulative amalgamation.

Several years ago, I posted a column about Darwinistic propaganda speculating that in prehistoric times that the genetic boundaries might not have been as set in stone with jungle fever taking on a connotation that might shock those of us entrapped by a morality that frowns upon transpecies romance.
Sophisticates of the scientific establishment easily dismiss bloggers for being out of touch and not playing with a full deck. However, seldom will they speak out against media mouthpieces allied in the cause of foisting a revolutionary secularism upon the nation such as The New Republic.
On the cover of the April 23, 2008 issue was a photo that bordered on the creepy. Depicted was a chimpanzee gazing dreamily off into the sky. However, that was not the truly disturbing aspect.

For as the chimp looked to the sky, tucked beneath his arm was a human female. However, this was not the embrace of a zookeeper showing a little affection to one of her charges or like one would share with a pet. Rather, from the depiction, one gets more of the impression that these two are somehow lovers.

The look on the woman's face with head tilted back with her eyes shut and her hand intertwined with the paw of the chimp causes one to wonder if the duo might go swinging in the trees together a bit later if one gets the drift.

Some might dismiss such shock as the rantings of a prude with too much time on their hands. However, numerous credentialed scientists have come out speculating as to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid as mankind's technical expertise continues to advance while moral expertise among the overly educated continues to atrophy.

According to an article in Wired Magazine titled “Science Without Limits”, such a primate hybridization program was suggested by renowned evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Categorizing the experiment as “the most potentially interesting and ethically unacceptable experiment I could imagine”, Gould speculated such a hybrid would theoretically shed light on how the retention of juvenile characteristics in chimpanzees led to the rise of human beings. That is if one believes in that sort of hooey.

The Wired article insists such an endeavor would not be as outlandish as it sounds. Research conducted with baboons and rhesus monkeys suggests that given genetic similarities such an undertaking might be biologically feasible. Such a creature could be brought into existence through the techniques of invitrofertilization and placed within a human surrogate.

Proverbs 8:36 teaches that those that hate God love death. That not only applies to the individual existential death that comes to mind when contemplating that term horrid to all people of goodwill. It also applies to the broader obliteration of our species that will result from the failure to properly recognize those distinctions that set mankind above his fellow creatures in the natural order below.